Tag: CAN Intervention

CAN Intervention in the COP20 SBSTA Closing Plenary, 6 December 2014

Thank you Mr. Chair,

My name is Harshita Bisht and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

There is an essential piece of the Technology transfer, Development and Diffusion puzzle missing in the negotiations and that is the economic, social and environmental assessment of mitigation and adaptation technologies. Our goal is to maximize the flow of technologies based, on the principle of CBDR, from developed to developing countries. But for this to be productive we need to ensure that transferred technologies will not have unforeseen impacts.

Technologies that carry the risk of a global and potentially devastating impact should not be part of any decision or agreement.  We call on all parties to demand that technology assessment be included within the mandate of the Technology Mechanism.

Regarding the negotiations on the Framework for Various Approaches, we welcome the cautioned approach not to prejudge progress towards a future climate treaty. However, this must not come at the expense of avoiding discussions on the nuts and bolts of an accounting framework, which we need to avoid that climate commitments are undermined. We call on Parties to start work on this important element in the ADP discussions as soon as possible.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

CAN Intervention in the COP20 SBI Closing Plenary, 5 December, 2014

Thank you Chair,

I am Carmen Capriles speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

The IPCC has made it extremely clear that the "limits to adaptation" exceed with greater rates and magnitude of climate change. Already there are several examples of impossible adaptation to intolerable and unavoidable risks such as sea level rise, ocean acidification, and loss of territory and biodiversity.

We need to take appropriate steps here in Lima to quickly operationalize the mechanism. First and foremost, let us establish The Executive Committee by agreeing on its composition and modalities of the Warsaw International Mechanism. The ExCom should mirror the composition of the Adaptation Committee as suggested by developing countries and particularly, a representative from the SIDS and LDCs should be included.

The 2 year work plan, based on the proposal by the initial Executive Committee should be adopted here but there is a clear need to include and strengthen its financial and technical support aspects. The 2015 agreement needs to be informed by the latest scientific analysis, which has been endorsed with high confidence by all countries. CAN demands that loss and damage due to reaching the limits of adaptation should be captured explicitly as a separate element in the agreement.

Thank you.

Topics: 

CAN Intervention in the COP20 CMP Plenary on Agenda Item 8, 3 December, 2014

 

Thank you Mr. President,

I am Juliane Voight speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

The Kyoto Protocol has many elements that we find important precedents for the 2015 Agreement.

  • Its framework allows long term viability, having commitments that can be updated at the same time in every commitment period
  • It has a robust MRV and common accounting system allowing for comparability of effort and clarity of commitment and effort
  • It defines common accounting rules and the basket of gases and common global warming potentials for them, that are counted towards the economy-wide reduction commitment, increasing comparability and ensuring ‘difficult’ emissions are not excluded
  • It has a compliance system
  • It has economy-wide, quantified absolute emissions reduction commitments for developed countries

The KP set the benchmark on these types of commitments for developed countries. And there should be more ambition, and no backsliding, in the 2015 Agreement.

The KP established market mechanisms, which have left lots of challenges in their wake. These mechanisms need to be reformed to go beyond offsetting to provide net mitigation at the global level, IF any use of market-based mechanisms is assumed at all in the post-2020 regime.

We call upon all Parties that have not yet done so, to ratify the amendments for the second commitment of the Kyoto Protocol.

Thank you Mr. President.

CAN Intervention in the COP20 ADP Opening Plenary, 2 December 2014

Thank you Co-Chairs,

My name is Aissatou Diouf and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

The work to be done here in Lima is the most important platform to ensuring an ambitious outcome in Paris on all levels. 

In workstream 2 Parties must ensure the TEM mandate is reformed to address the mitigation gap as well as focus on means of implementation, to move away from discussion mode to actions.

Decision text on INDCs must include a process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21, which should involve civil society participation.  The INDCs should not just be based on mitigation, but should include provisions on finance and voluntary provisions on adaptation.  CAN calls for a much greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders to be encouraged and empowered to assist in the development of a nations’ INDC.

Within the 2015 agreement, CAN calls for long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050. In order to achieve this there needs to be adequate scaling up of finance through a global public finance goal. 

Thank you. 

CAN Intervention in the COP20 COP/CMP Opening Plenary, 1 December 2014

 

Spanish Version

Gracias Sr. Presidente, 

Mi nombre es Alejandra Watanabe y hablo en representación de Climate Action Network.

Lima necesita tomar medidas concretas para fomentar la confianza que garantice la acción climática y un resultado exitoso en 2015. 

En septiembre, más de 400 000 personas marcharon en Nueva York para decirle al mundo: “Necesitamos más Acción Climática ahora”. Un mes después, el IPPC ratificó este llamado. Algunos países han realizado anuncios climáticos muy alentadores para sus metas post-2020 y otros deberían seguir su ejemplo antes de marzo 2015. 

Celebramos la capitalización inicial del Fondo Verde para el Clima (GCF), pero esto no debe distraernos de un DESAFÍO MAYOR: escalar el financiamiento HASTA el periodo 2020 y MUCHO MÁS ALLÁ, dentro del nuevo acuerdo incluyendo una meta de financiamiento público. 

El perfil del acuerdo de 2015 será definido por 3 resultados clave que necesitan ser alcanzados en Lima: la ambición pre-2020, los requisitos de información para las contribuciones nacionales previstas determinadas (INDCs) y los elementos del acuerdo.

Para el Grupo de Trabajo 2, las discusiones necesitan ser traducidas en acciones reales y estas deben ser complementadas por una hoja de ruta global de FINANCIAMIENTO al 2020 para alcanzar $100 mil millones. 

Para las INDCs, necesitamos ciclos de contribuciones de 5 años, con el primer conjunto de contribuciones para el periodo 2020 – 2025. Estas deben ser evaluadas y revisadas desde el inicio para que cumplan con lo requerido por la ciencia y los principios de equidad, y en caso necesario, escalarlas a un mayor nivel. 

El acuerdo de París debe incluir una meta a largo plazo para eliminar progresivamente las emisiones provenientes de combustibles fósiles, así como impulsar la inclusión de energías renovables al 100% en la medida de lo posible pero tomando como límite el periodo 2050.

Gracias. 

English Version

Thank you Mr. President,

I am Alejandra Watanabe speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network. 

Lima needs to deliver bold confidence building measures to ensure climate action and a successful outcome in 2015.

In September more than 400,000 people marched in New York City to tell the world, ‘More Climate Action, Now’.  One month later, the IPCC reaffirmed this call. 

Some countries have made encouraging climate announcements for their post-2020 targets and others should follow suit before March 2015. 

We welcome the initial capitalization of the GCF, though it shouldn’t distract from the bigger CHALLENGE of scaling up finance UNTIL 2020, AND ALSO BEYOND, within the new agreement including a public finance goal. 

The contours of the 2015 agreement are going to be defined by 3 key outcomes to be finalized in Lima: pre 2020 ambition, information requirements on INDC and elements of the agreement.

For workstream 2, discussions need to be translated into real action and this action should be complemented by a global 2020 FINANCE roadmap to get to the $100 billion.

For INDCs, we need 5 year cycles of contributions with the first set of contributions from 2020 – 2025. Before these are finalized, they need to be assessed and reviewed for scientific adequacy and equity and scaled up if found inadequate.

The Paris agreement must include a long term goal of phasing out fossil fuel emissions and phasing in 100% renewable energy as early as possible but no later than 2050.

Thank you. 

Organization: 

CAN Intervention in the COP20 SBI Opening Plenary, 1 December 2014-not delivered

Thank you Co-Chairs,

I am Neoka Naidoo speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

IPCC AR5 highlights the urgent need to scale up adaptation and that limits are being surpassed. There has been notable progress related to the institutional set up for adaptation and loss and damage. The roadmap for developing countries to reduce vulnerability of their populations through the development of National Adaptation Plans is getting clearer. The recent pledges for the Green Climate Fund have provided a much needed boost, though the money must actually flow.

However, needs on the ground are much higher than what is currently on the table.  The expected 4 degree increase by the end of the century, according to the current emission reduction trajectory, paints a devastating picture for poor people and ecosystems. In Lima, Parties must ensure that adaptation becomes a central and integral element of the 2015 agreement including a link between expected levels of global temperature increase based on collective mitigation ambition and the support provided to poor countries and communities, recognizing human rights. We also expect progress with regard to support and guidelines for non-LDCs to prepare National Adaptation Plans.

Efforts to operationalize the loss and damage mechanism must be undertaken through the adoption of an ambitious 2 year work plan with both technical and financial capacity to address loss and damage affecting vulnerable populations, countries and ecosystems.

Thank you.

 

Topics: 
Organization: 

CAN Intervention in the COP20 SBSTA Opening Plenary, 1 December 2014-not delivered

Thank you Chair,

I am Vositha Wijenayake speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

As Parties will deliberate on the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) we would like to stress the following:

An FVA must be seen in the context of the 2015 agreement and must not prejudge the work of the ADP on the 2015 agreement.

Before establishing an FVA, experience with existing carbon markets needs to be taken into account. The vast majority of CDM and JI offsets come from non-additional projects. Experiences with JI show that even with sound accounting rules, low quality offsets can lead to higher global emissions than if commitments were met purely domestically.  

The use of market mechanisms under a new agreement must under no circumstances undermine mitigation targets and it must not threaten sustainable development and human rights.

Therefore, only countries with ambitious domestic mitigation commitments, in line with the 2C degree target and equity principles should be eligible to participate in international markets. Moreover, the use of internationally traded units has to be supplemental to domestic mitigation efforts.

All internationally traded offsets have to meet environmental integrity standards as set out in Durban to ensure that traded units are real, permanent, additional and verified.

Robust and comprehensive accounting rules must be established to avoid double counting and to enable achieving net atmospheric benefits.

Thank you.

 

Organization: 

CAN Intervention: ADP Technical Expert Meeting on Non-CO2 GHGs at ADP2-6, 23 October, 2014

My name is Natasha Hurley and I'm speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network. 

We welcome the organization of today's Technical Expert Meeting on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, which has certainly been a timely and useful opportunity to take stock of the mulitple initiatives on HFCs and other gases that are already being rolled out in many countries and regions around the world. 

However, we need to be reassured that all the good talk and presentation of real-world evidence will result in a global scaling up of climate action in the very near term. 

We think these Technical Expert Meetings should be seen as a final springboard towards action to plub the growing mitigation gap and that they should make a sustained and lasting impact. In short, these discussions should not just be a one-off talking shop. 

We heard a lot in teh previous session about the host of initiatives aimed at curbing the use of HFCs worldwide, and the growing market in climate-friendly energy-efficient alternatives. This is one example where global action could be taken immediately, in fact as soon as next month at the 26th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Paris. 

So we urge Parties here to take full advantage of today's discussion and use the existing institutional framework under the Montreal Protocol to implement a global phase-down of HFCs. 

From our perspective, this would be convincing proof that the TEMs are able to help deliver wha they were set up to do, which is to provide concrete results in the very near future. 

Thank you Chair. 

Related Event: 

CAN Intervention at the Bonn ADP2-6 Opening Plenary, 20 October 2014

Thank you Co-Chairs,

I am Vositha Wijenayake speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

The INDC draft decision text needs to be finalized at this session. CAN believes that INDCs from all major economies need to be submitted by March 2015. It is crucial that INDCs are detailed and come early enough, to support a comprehensive and meaningful review process. This review will ensure that contributions from countries are fair and equitable in relation to each other as well as ambitious and scientifically adequate to put us back on a climate safe trajectory.

Locking in low ambition within the INDCs is a real danger. The INDCs need to have a five-year cycle with the first cycle ending in 2025. The EU is likely to decide on its contribution in the coming days and we urge them to set the bar high enough for others to follow rather than initiate a race to the bottom.

On climate finance: developed countries need to accept that providing finance is part of their fair share in the global effort alongside mitigation efforts. In Paris we will need new collective targets for public finance but also individual quantified commitments. The INDC should include such planned commitments as otherwise it would not be possible to assess if a country does its fair share.

Thank you

Related Event: 

CAN Intervention: ADP Closing Plenary SB40s, not delivered, 15 June, 2014

 

This written intervention is submitted by the Climate Action Network to the final plenary of ADP2.5.

This session began on a high note with positive signals coming out of two major emitters.  During the session, we heard over 60 countries expressed support for the idea of a phase out of greenhouse gas emissions.  These are encouraging developments, however, as the now inevitable ultimate collapse of sections of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet remind us, all countries need to be going further, faster.  We expect - and we need - more positive signals and firm new commitments coming out of September’s Ban Ki-Moon Summit, COP20, and through to the March 2015 deadline for post-2020 contributions. 

In Lima, Parties will need to agree on the upfront information required for their post-2020 contributions as well as the process by which those contributions should be assessed.  We are concerned that some Parties do not think such an assessment is necessary.  CAN believes warming should be limited to 1.5°C.  The commitments made in Paris must be consistent with such a temperature goal.  We will conduct a civil society review to ensure that proposed contributions - both mitigation and financial - are adequate and equitable.  At a minimum, an official space within the ADP should be created for civil society and research organisation to present the outcomes of their assessments in June 2015; in addition to the question and answer sessions we expect Parties to hold regarding their contributions.  Parties will also need to agree on a deadline for resubmitting contributions prior to COP21 should these prove inadequate.

To enable such an assessment, proposed contributions must be quantifiable, comprehensible, comparable and reproducible and this should be reflected in upfront information requirements.  For developed countries, there must be no backsliding from the Kyoto approach with multi-year carbon budgets based on common metrics.  This type of commitment should be expanded to a broader group of countries, including all in the OECD.  Finance is also a core element of the upfront information requirements.  It is an integral part of fair share for developed countries and, in the post-2020 context, for those with comparable levels of responsibility and capability.  The upfront information requirements should also include an agreed list of equity indicators which Parties should use to explain why their proposed contributions represent an ambitious and adequate contribution to the glob­al climate challenge.  To avoid locking in low levels of ambition, all contributions must have a common end date of 2025, while Parties should also indicate their emissions pathways over the longer term in 2030, 2040 and an ultimate phase out of fossil fuel emissions in 2050.

In Paris, Parties have to commit to phasing out fossil fuel emissions and phasing in a 100% renewable energy future for all by mid-century.  In order to achieve these goals, we need to act now.  Lima must capture progress under workstream two and Parties must agree to concrete measures to reduce emissions.  The technical expert meetings should continue beyond 2014 until we have closed the gap.

We look forward to a productive session in October.  Much remains to be done to ensure ambitious outcomes in Lima, Paris and beyond.

Thank you Co-Chairs.

 

 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: CAN Intervention